Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 NYCman530
Joined: 7/6/2009
Msg: 251
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percentPage 11 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Business owners are not suffering the consequences of hiring illegals. They should either be heavilly fined or shut down. They wouldn't be crossing the border in droves if they knew business owners would not hire them. And all this bunk about illegals doing jobs Americans won't do? That's hogwash! It wasn't like that years ago, why should that change? All the free medical they receive is a contributing factor in health care costs going up. Obama needs to focus more on border control, something that was very lax ever since the Clinton administration, when they started piling in like crazy. If it keeps up the way it has, we're eventually going to need a president who's against amnesty for them.
 oluvlyme
Joined: 10/25/2009
Msg: 252
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 12/31/2009 11:03:14 PM

So if you, the American citizen, are working against the government in this matter, why would you be demanding that the government do a better job?


My dear, are you not proving my point?
I think NYCman530 answered your question perfectly. Better immigration control = lower costs. You don't just allow illegal immigrants to have health coverage which will be paid for by the high earning citizens of this country ( doctors, lawyers, etc.) That's ridiculous. This is a dream come true for illegals. They can get health insurance and pretty much not pay for it, we will...not that this isn't being done already. It's upsetting, to support someone that isn't supposed to be here. They reap the benefits of my tax dollars, but many struggling citizens can't get any help. If we keep this up, there will be more people in need of support than those able to give it. The illegals will keep coming, and we'll keep supporting them.

So to reinforce my point, it is partly the government's fault some people are without health insurance. We need better border control!! You fix that, then business owners cannot hire illegal immigrants...because guess what? They can't get over here.

I think there are alot of areas in which the government needs improvement. Am I not entitled to my opinion? Yes, I think they screw things up sometimes...that's why they need to do a better job, mainly at preventing problems. Not waiting until it's all screwed up to try to make a change. Basically, I think better border control could be a preventative step in keeping health costs low.
 YourCuteGuy1
Joined: 5/14/2007
Msg: 253
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/1/2010 4:39:55 AM
How about any business caught hiring illegals ought to have their businesses seized by local governments. And those who can work that are in jails, prison, and on welfare can can work in those businesses. Also, it's a perfect opportunity for those who have to serve community service.

Then they could actually be working towards their own health care.

The worst thing I see coming down the pike is foreign peace keeping militia coming here and us paying for them too. Every angle I look at our country going just sucks.
 jack-d-ripper
Joined: 2/25/2008
Msg: 254
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:08:51 AM
.

That sounds like a socialist plot for a Gov take over of Meat packing, Construction, and Landscaping >>>>

It that from Marx or Mao?


.
 YourCuteGuy1
Joined: 5/14/2007
Msg: 255
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:17:19 AM
[The worst thing I see coming down the pike is foreign peace keeping militia coming here and us paying for them too. Every angle I look at our country going just sucks.]



[That sounds like a socialist plot for a Gov take over of Meat packing, Construction, and Landscaping >>>>

It that from Marx or Mao?]

I don't know dude, you're gonna have to ask your President or the United Nations.

How would you feel about our American prison inmates working as members of Homeland Security to earn their keep? Would that be Marxist or Mao?

Edit: Article by By JULIA PRESTON
Not DESCRIBED as a fine and they didn't ADMIT to any misconduct.

Sure... Why is the Great Obama all over that? Oh what? He isn't?

That money should have stayed in Pittsburg, Texas... in my opinion.
 jack-d-ripper
Joined: 2/25/2008
Msg: 256
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:18:55 AM
.

Corp's Can do n wrong. Its always labor or the little guy at fault.

[quote[
Officials End Immigration Inquiry
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: December 31, 2009

Federal authorities have agreed not to prosecute the Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, a major chicken processor, for hiring illegal immigrant workers, and the company has agreed to pay the federal government $4.5 million over three years, said federal prosecutors for the Eastern District of Texas.

>>>>>>>>>>>
The payment was not described as a fine, and the company, which is based in Pittsburg, Tex., admitted no criminal or civil misconduct.



Not A FINE and NO MISCONDUCT.............

.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 257
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:15:59 AM

Sure... Why is the Great Obama all over that? Oh what? He isn't?
Exactly how many things is he to handle in his first year,one guy says Obama should solve one problem then move on to the next and others says its endless the amount of things he is to tackle.The guys only human,the only ones that ever claimed he was a Messiah was ones on the right.He's currently reamed because he addresses the air bomber 72 hours after the fact, but the shoe bomber was 5 days after the attack and Bush never officially addressed it,it was brought up during a xmas interview,after asking him and his wike how his xmas was going, they said then ,hey ,howabout the shoe bomber,and not a single republican thought anything was wrong with that,but if its Obama,the same characters are OH my God this is a tragedy!

As for the corporations and the Chicken corp being charged and the illegal immigrants.I watched a news show,showing in the impoverished small towns those corporations choose to base their plants,that they wield so much power over the small town that the police are in cahoots with them sometimes,they show midnight raids where the police knock on the illegal alien bosses trailer door and he points out to the police which trailers to go too that house illegals,yet the bosses are never booted,all they have to do is round up 6-7 illegals a night and they look great as a town making steady progress,yet the corporation drives vans up to a 100 miles away to import the workers,first smart thing they do when placing a plant is pick a town that does not have enough population to handle the work need ,so they travel and pick up out of towners ,house them in company trailers and now you are forced to play right.Just as the train Barons did more than a hundred years ago.

Since a minority of the politicians are as crooked as the minority of police and Mega corporations CEOs,then although I'd like to see government step in and change them that concept also scares me.Why can't independent citizens make these changes on corporations.We did that in Portland in an area of governmental abuse,they brought in a citizens panel and slapped them quickly into place,because having had local government problems and handling the local government to police themselves somehow didn't work.

Its not that all government is bad,its that I don't see how you can weed out those against helping you,the ones that are being paid off by other interests and lobbyists or their interest is solely reelection.Such as now with our health reform,we are just trying to help people ,force the evil CEOs of these Mega corporations to allow preconditions and lower prices rather than maintaining obscene record profits each year,then paying themselves obscene,off the hook record breaking bonuses,but the rightwing apparently likes it abusive as its always been,so how could anyone possibly trust government with so many enemies of the state in it,its scary,even my my own party,Lieberman holding everyone hostage unless he gets his way.How can you deal with enemies of the state thats only concern is the benefit of Exxon,or Chase or Tyson or Monsanto or any of the mega corporations more evil than good.I mean how could you trust Halliburton who held a monopoly and the vice president ,their cheerleader once was like their CEO,was he not?

I mean who really cares how nice a mega corporations good side is, if they are actually one of the greatest single polluters of our water system or the greatest abuser of local citizens in another country,or a myriad of other hurtful things counterproductive to our way of healthy life.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 258
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/1/2010 12:39:36 PM

My dear, are you not proving my point?


No dear, I am not. My point was that you seem to have a problem with the government for a reason that it isn't very clear. First you say that the government can't do anything right, and you don't want it regulating anything, and then you are demanding that the government do something about immigration.

My post was suggesting that the issue is a lot more complicated than just saying "I want the government to do this.... and I don't want the government to do that..."


I think there are alot of areas in which the government needs improvement. Am I not entitled to my opinion? Yes, I think they screw things up sometimes...that's why they need to do a better job, mainly at preventing problems. Not waiting until it's all screwed up to try to make a change. Basically, I think better border control could be a preventative step in keeping health costs low.


Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. No problem with that issue here. I have my opinions also, but the problem is that those issues have to be considered taking into account some of the underlying facts. I would agree with you that better border control would help with the problem of illegal immigration.

The biggest problem that Americans have in relation to the problem if illegal immigration is that they have been duped by the extreme right wing of the Republican Party and their corporate friends, especially the Chamber of Commerce, into believing that the typical face of illegal immigrantion is that of a Mexican looking, poor, and uneducated laborer. They have made them the scapegoats of that large scale criminal enterprise that is the illegal immigration into the USA.

My position about that is the illegal immigrant laborers are just one part of the big issue. The other part is probably the biggest part, and that is the one driven by the profit motive. Unless you remove that driving force behind illegal immigration you will never solve the issue, no matter how high you build the fence and much you beef up the border control. If there is money to be made by those who don't look like the Mexican laborers, they will keep on trying to bring them in by whatever means they can devise to skirt the law.

Here you have one example:

Four plead guilty in visa scheme

Associated Press / December 31, 2009

PHILADELPHIA - Four employees at a Pennsylvania staffing company have admitted they scammed the visa system to bring hundreds of seasonal workers into the United States for clients.

International Personnel Resources applied for temporary work visas under phony names culled from a Mexican phonebook, and its employees used the stockpiled documents to place workers from Mexico and Central America in landscaping and other jobs, authorities said.

At times, the company sent undocumented workers home, supplied them with visas and coached them to tell immigration officials they had never been in the country illegally, prosecutors said.

Former office manager Emily V. Ford, 29, of West Chester, pleaded guilty yesterday, Assistant US Attorney Kevin Brenner said.

Company owner and President Michael T. Glah, 48, and his wife, Vice President Theresa M. Klish, 50, both of West Chester, and office manager Mary H. Gillin, 60, of Downingtown, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Philadelphia federal court to charges in the 11-count information.

All four are set for sentencing on March 29. Glah faces a mandatory five-year prison term. The others face prison terms under federal guidelines, Brenner said.

Glah’s lawyer, Robert J. Donatoni, called his client remorseful. “There will come a time when they will articulate why this happened,’’ Donatoni said. “Obviously, there will be no justification for it.’’ The other defense lawyers did not immediately return messages.

H-2B visas are designed for companies that cannot find Americans willing to fill their jobs. The West Chester-based company accumulated hundreds of H-2B visas for arriving workers from 2003 to 2008.

The defendants took advantage of a provision in the law that lets employers substitute new names if the original applicant becomes unavailable.


I can't swear that I know this for a fact, but I believe that in almost every town in America there is at least one company like that conspiring with the Chamber of Commerce to bring illegal aliens to work for their members for the lowest wages that they like to pay. They don't want to hire American workers that demand at least the minimun wage. They have spread around the country that American Workers don't want to work in certain jobs, but they forget to say that the American workers refuse to work for the low wages that they offer. As long as they can hire an illegal worker, the employers don't have to pay higher wages to the American workers.

And, as you can see by the results of that investigation, it seems as if the government is doing something right. Don't you think?
 oluvlyme
Joined: 10/25/2009
Msg: 259
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/2/2010 11:17:40 PM
Tranquilo123:

In this case, yes, the government is doing something right, but if there isn't, there should be a limit set for how many visas a company is able to obtain for these workers given a certain time frame. I agree that business owners are largely at fault here. But the government has ultimate control of the situation...because they supply the visas.

I agree with you 100% that it is a profit motive. But something has to be done or else it will just get worse. How is it going to get done? I have no clue. But if they really want health reform...this is something to think about because it is a contributing factor.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 260
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/3/2010 4:13:57 AM
The essential problem here is that Americans have a cultural filter, one that's easily identifiable and historically reinforced. It's the archetype of the individual standing alone and supreme - especially when facing the state. It's so deep it's infiltrated into the cultural DNA of most, if not all Americans, in greater or lesser amounts.

Just look at American arts like film/literature and television to see echoes of that cultural filter echoing through - that's how persistent it is, and how culturally valued it is. From On The Waterfront, to Twelve Angry Men, to High Noon, it's probably the sine qua non of what defines the orientation of how Americans see themselves as a people.

Now take that, and also apply a liberal dose of the direct and indirect impact of America's corporate oligarchy - and it's no wonder that the health care debate in the USA is so seriously skewed - or why Representative Bob Inglis was told “keep your government hands off my Medicare” at a townhall meeting.

Now compare this to the far easier time that healthcare has in other nation states, where this "individualism" doesn't contaminate the debate - nor the ugly hidden face of that oligarchy try to control the public agenda with things like Astroturf organizations that seek to hide the real opponents of health care reform under the guise of this very convenient cultural filter they can use as an extension to leverage the blockage of anything that approaches what other nations take for granted when it comes to healthcare organization.

This wasn't always like that, however.

HMO's and PPO's are in fact mini ME versions of what countries like Canada offer, and this is done without any problem conceptually, because it avoids the problems larger volumes of Americans generate coming against that cultural filter barrier. Consider it a bit like the reflection that occurs when states rights are supported over federal ones of the same model. That smaller group is acting, in a way, in the same way the "individual-over-the-state" is conceptually.

Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 created HMO's :



The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-222), also known as the HMO Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 300e, is a law passed by the Congress of the United States that resulted from discussions Paul Ellwood had with what is today the Department of Health and Human Services. It provided grants and loans to provide, start, or expand a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO); removed certain state restrictions for federally qualified HMOs; and required employers with 25 or more employees to offer federally certified HMO options alongside traditional indemnity insurance upon request (the "dual choice provision"). HMOs were required to meet three basic requirements. These were to offer a specified list of benefits to all members, charge all members the same monthly premium, and be structured as a nonprofit organization.

The Act solidified the term HMO and gave HMOs greater access to the employer-based market, providing for the rapid expansion of HMOs in later years. No longer needed now that HMOs are widespread,[citation needed] the dual choice provision expired in 1995. This has led some large employers to cease offering HMOs, replacing them instead with Preferred provider organizations (PPOs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973


This was followed by PPO's :



A preferred provider organization is a subscription-based medical care arrangement. A membership allows a substantial discount below their regularly charged rates from the designated professionals partnered with the organization. Preferred provider organizations themselves earn money by charging an access fee to the insurance company for the use of their network (unlike the usual insurance with premiums and corresponding payments paid either in full or partially by the insurance provider to the medical doctor). They negotiate with providers to set fee schedules, and handle disputes between insurers and providers. PPOs can also contract with one another to strengthen their position in certain geographic areas without forming new relationships directly with providers. This will be mutually beneficial in theory, as the insurer will be billed at a reduced rate when its insureds utilize the services of the "preferred" provider and the provider will see an increase in its business as almost all insureds in the organization will use only providers who are members.

Other features of a preferred provider organization generally include utilization review, where representatives of the insurer or administrator review the records of treatments provided to verify that they are appropriate for the condition being treated rather than largely or solely being performed to increase the amount of reimbursement due.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_provider_organization


Again, in an environment of corporate oligarchy, it's no wonder that these same companies can "filter" those people out that cost money......like really sick ones.....simply because they exist not to treat people - but to make a lot of money for their workers, CEO's, and Wall Street. This is their prime directive, not actually making people better. The Hippocratic oath gets turned into the Hypocritic oath rather quickly, when profit puts on a pair of scrubs and walks into the ER.

It's also not a very efficient model, since all those companies can have their own forms, and methods - increasing the number of people that have to do the same thing over and over again with a rather antiquated system (compared to what it could be made into).

Now compare it to the cultural models of Europe and Canada, where this "rampant individualism" is tempered by a realization that health care is indeed a human right, and that a larger group of people make a far more logical choice in terms of supporting the costs of such an organization .

Health care is indeed even a national security issue, as a large mass of people without adequate medical care is a perfect Petri dish that can serve as a Pandora's box of infection to the country.

So, against those two pillars of that cultural filter and corporate oligarchy - it's amazing Obama's at an even split.
 dmotz
Joined: 11/19/2008
Msg: 261
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/3/2010 6:39:02 AM

Exactly how many things is he to handle in his first year,


This is why he has so many czars! He has a cabinet and members to do things for him ya know. He has advisors and others to look at and solve problems. It is just that his money robbing health care and corporate buy outs mean more to him than anything else.


He's currently reamed because he addresses the air bomber 72 hours after the fact, but the shoe bomber was 5 days after the attack and Bush never officially addressed it


BUT,BUT,BUT Bush did this...Bush did that...One full year into the obama admin and the left still can not see the Forrest for the trees.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 262
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/3/2010 8:44:47 AM

This is why he has so many czars! He has a cabinet and members to do things for him ya know. He has advisors and others to look at and solve problems. It is just that his money robbing health care and corporate buy outs mean more to him than anything else.
I am so tired of this Czar word ,didn't like Rush or Glen Beck give it that name as to be a smart Asp.He has so many advisors because rarely ever before have we had so many problems in our country at the same time,its only like the third time in history.First was probably the civil war with Lincoln and the destruction of the whole country because of the ongoing strife,second was probably during the great depression at the time of rebuilding our lives and then of course now.All three of these times were a time we all needed many brilliant people in the think tank.

Never does an adviser do as you claim,its shows you have zero uderstanding about these things.

Healthcare reform will save 120 billion dollars and the system as is ,is already proven to cost money.Corporate buyouts,your correct,yes Bush needed to save the banks,he had the right idea but put no rules into the arena of wolves,Obama then had to redo it except with hard rules,then and only then did they play somewhat nice,if Bush had spent the money correctly the first time,Obama wouldn't have had to come in yet again and clean up another mess.They did not collaspe did they,they are all paying back the money and going strong,world markets affected by the banks under Bushes watch are now sighing relief.Perhaps you had not noticed the entire world was effected by our banks,or do you even care !

The auto industry,had nothing been done ,millions would be in food stamps now,whole auto related industries shutting factories doors all over this country,some times I wonder in your mind how you perceive these economies actually work.Lets see loan them money that they are all paying back or have millions more than already are,unemployed and on food stamps,all losing their houses too.I have to wonder why you always choose the direction that would have hurt the most people.quote] BUT,BUT,BUT Bush did this...Bush did that...One full year into the obama admin and the left still can not see the Forrest for the trees. No, that is part of the problem,that some of those screaming the loudest were the exact same men that let similar stuff slide with Bush,why the extreme double standard.Even the pork,it was record breaking amounts in I think 2003,and they had no issue with it.This bomber deal,no issue at all when its post 9-11 and Bush doesn't address it in 5 days and interviewer makes mention of it is all.There are many comparisons to the same republicans going the absolute opposite when it was Bush.At some point you need to try and erase this notion that we need to forget this Bush and republican talk just because its Obama time,because there are many examples of they supporting Bush on things that they say are absolutely outrageous now. I realize the republicans would like nothing more than to have us lose our memories of their positions and actions when it was Bush because at the moment they are trying to display themselves as the correct path,the " we could never steer you wrong," guys,boy talk about waffling all over the board.
 eeeo4U
Joined: 6/25/2007
Msg: 263
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/5/2010 2:55:34 PM
I don't care if he tries to push through health care. I oppose it, believe the current system should favor the insurance companies less and encourage people to be medical practitioners instead of the opposite, but in his rush to accomplish too much in one year he forgets that most people who have no health care also have no jobs. Any excessive regulation be it cap and trade or health care discourages the formation of jobs in the private sector, and that must be stopped so that we can at least earn enough to pay for all this utopia!
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 264
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/5/2010 9:21:11 PM

I don't care if he tries to push through health care. I oppose it, believe the current system should favor the insurance companies less and encourage people to be medical practitioners instead of the opposite, but in his rush to accomplish too much in one year he forgets that most people who have no health care also have no jobs. Any excessive regulation be it cap and trade or health care discourages the formation of jobs in the private sector, and that must be stopped so that we can at least earn enough to pay for all this utopia!


If you can't or do not want to see the how the pieces fit together you will naturally oppose any thing President Obama is trying to do, the removal of regulations brought us to our financial knees.

Encourage people to be self practioners? I am for that lets impose some more taxes on junk food and drink that will help pay in advance for the health care they will need in the future or maybe they will consider a healthier life style, 20 million dollar salaries for insurance CEO's I wonder where that money comes from?

Cap and trade? It seems like it is a great way to encourage the R & D of new energy sources and new jobs to support the R & D
 eeeo4U
Joined: 6/25/2007
Msg: 265
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/6/2010 9:48:07 AM
Practicing good healthy measures is not what I was talking about. I was talking about more Americans becoming doctors and nurse practitioners...now the liability issues are so daunting that many think twice about the investment required. When someone has a $3000 tax refund and has the choice of starting a small business (let's say lawn mowing for example) or paying for mandated health insurance, less money is put into the economy, people remain shackled to their corporate/government existence and there is less competition for necessary services. I say, fine, have the debate, work out the issues, but right now we need to look short-term because people are starving right here. The health care benefits won't kick in until 2014 at the earliest which presupposes a high level of optimism for someone who is facing a tough midterm election this year...
 clearlykat
Joined: 7/31/2008
Msg: 266
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/6/2010 1:13:56 PM
I see the lack of affordable health insurance for people not in corporate job as a shackle that prevents people from starting a small business. I know that is what is keeping me in my corporate position. I have a good idea and solid business plan for a small business but I could never get or afford health insurance.
 eeeo4U
Joined: 6/25/2007
Msg: 267
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/6/2010 1:23:20 PM
Two solutions: Open up the health insurance market to nationwide, not state by state. Although on most issues I support "state's rights" (that doesn't make me a 1960's southern racist, just in favor of less federal power) I think that companies should be able to do business across state lines.

The next is bringing down individual rates so that they are competitive with corporate rates. COBRA doesn't need to cost a fortune either.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 268
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/6/2010 2:16:11 PM
Another good article from this week's Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/228951

..." Given the urgency of those challenges, underscored by the Nigerian bomber, was it wise for the president to spend most of his first year and political capital on a monumentally complicated overhaul of the nation's health-care system? And will the results of that gamble—not fundamental reform, but rather an expensive set of patches, bypasses, and trusses bolted onto the existing system—improve the lives of Americans enough to help him or his fellow Democrats politically?

Put me down as skeptical.

Perhaps not since the New Deal has a new president made such a massive bet on a single domestic initiative. I think I understand Obama's reasoning. It did not take him long (probably after the first round of CIA briefings) to realize that he was not going to be able to satisfy his liberal base on intractable, unwinnable foreign and security policy. It's easier to make history on the home front. And Obama was genuinely moved by the heart-wrenching health-care stories he heard on the campaign trail. So he sought—and may well get—things to brag about. The legislation will extend coverage to at least 30 million of the uninsured, and it will end, or at least limit, some of the insurance industry's most predatory practices.

But the crusade that is dragging itself toward the finish line doesn't quite feel like a triumph, let alone the launch of a new New Deal. The reasons offered for the undertaking have been ever-shifting. In the campaign, it was about rationalizing the system and saving federal cash; then it was about protecting coverage of the middle class; then about the moral duty to cover the uninsured. By the time Bill Clinton met privately with Senate Democrats on Obama's behalf, it was (in his telling) primarily about the political optics: the need to pass something, anything, to avoid defeat.

The effort to jam the bill through Congress made the public dubious. Most Democrats voted for a version of the bill on the first round without having read, let alone digested, its thousands of pages. As the Christmas Eve vote approached, desperate last-minute stocking stuffers appeared in the small print, such as a $1.2 billion payoff to the state of Nebraska that secured Sen. Ben Nelson's reluctant vote. Obama had promised us a transparent "Google Government," but now we know what Obama government actually looks like: ambitious and generous, perhaps, but also secretive, Chicago-style, and way too complicated. Fewer than half of voters now support the legislation, murky as it still is to them. Crucially, support has cratered among independents.

The result is a 10-year, trillion-dollar contraption full of political risk and unintended consequences for a health-care system that constitutes one sixth of the economy. Many of the people who will benefit directly from the reforms, the uninsured, don't vote. Insurance premiums will continue to shoot up for most of us; Democrats fret that they will be blamed for those increases in the 2010 elections. Some regulations on the industry kick in immediately, but most don't begin until at least 2013. And yet, to allow the bill to "save" money in the first decade, most new taxes and fees go into effect immediately. "We're collecting money before we're giving all the benefits!" lamented a Democratic senator facing reelection. "That is a political disaster."

Maybe for that guy and his congressional colleagues, but what about Obama? For now, he is safely behind a blast wall, since many of the law's features wouldn't come into play until his second term, if he has one. But if he's lucky enough to get that far, he will discover that even simple things in government never go as planned; a project as large and complex as his health-care "fix" is certain to be more costly and disruptive than anticipated, and in ways no one can predict. "Never allow a crisis to go to waste," Emanuel declared a year ago. "They are opportunities to do big things." Yes they are, but Obama has to hope he's not creating another crisis in the process. ' '
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 269
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/6/2010 9:29:43 PM
Well, again it's one of those problems any politician faces in many countries - and especially in the USA with it's corporate personhood (Google the Supreme Court's Santa Clara decision), the oligarchy (part and parcel of the American political landscape, as well as elsewhere) and especially the still unresolved issue of campaign financing/corporate lobbying (one thing all all parties seem to agree NEEDS real change...but also seem to agree that it's not happening anytime soon ) which helps to cement all of the above into one huge mess.

Also, this political concept of pork barreling (certainly NOT just an American problem) is added to the mix. Soliciting on the street gets you a jail sentence, soliciting in politics seems to get you......well...what you want.

I think that article brings out some good points, and I had some doubts that this thing would sail through unmolested simply thanks to the profits involved. I believe the intent was there, but the roadblocks and astroturfing (added to the economic problems existing) certainly helped to cause the mutation we are seeing.

If you check some earlier posts I made last year during the election campaign, I never believed that a "Canadian style" program could ever be seriously considered there - simply due to the cultural and historical memes that differ between our two countries and how we see things.

On top of that, thanks to the political polarization there, Obama doesn't have the power needed to force things through. That's another factor in all this. It takes both public opinion and the legislative numbers to have the force to drive it forward, and he is under heavy opposition from the right and the astroturfers in "molding" public opinion here. There's a TON of cash being spent to fight this tooth and nail from the health care industries major players - which should come as no surprise to anyone.

That's sad, because there is a real need here for serious reform on this. If you look at the increases that have occurred over the last decade or so, plus what's potentially ahead as a population ages demographically, something HAS to be done.

So one winds up at a crossroads, as one often seems to do in politics. Compromise is needed to get legislation passed (see above), but at what point does that compromise negate the original intent ?

Perhaps we will see some more changes before it's all set in stone, at least that's what I am hoping for.
 clearlykat
Joined: 7/31/2008
Msg: 270
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/7/2010 6:52:32 AM

Posted: 1/6/2010 420 PM
Two solutions: Open up the health insurance market to nationwide, not state by state. Although on most issues I support "state's rights" (that doesn't make me a 1960's southern racist, just in favor of less federal power) I think that companies should be able to do business across state lines.

The next is bringing down individual rates so that they are competitive with corporate rates. COBRA doesn't need to cost a fortune either.


I have read this opening up over state lines argument repeatedly in the forums. I understand that some states have more requirements than others but besides that I guess I just don't understand how this would make a substantial difference for the uninsured, especially those with pre-existing. Any public company is in the business first and foremost of making a profit and return to their shareholders, correct? If you are in the health insurance business and you are working in the individual market, the best way to do that is to insure the young and healthy, those least likely to need expensive medical care and to deny those who are getting older and statistically most likely to use more medical care and to deny anyone with a history of medical issues. I don't care how many state lines you cross, that only makes sense for a for -profit company, there will never be any competition for those that are cancer survivors, or suffer from diabetes or any of the other thousands of conditions that can keep you from obtaining insurance.

When you look at the COBRA rate, you are looking at what you pay for your insurance when employed by a company plus the contribution your employer made, you are just picking up 100% of the cost. That is something that forces you to realize how expensive health insurance policies truly are. How would you ever bring down the individual rate so it is competitive? The problem is that our health insurance is linked to employment.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 271
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/7/2010 7:02:40 AM

I think that article brings out some good points, and I had some doubts that this thing would sail through unmolested simply thanks to the profits involved. I believe the intent was there, but the roadblocks and astroturfing (added to the economic problems existing) certainly helped to cause the mutation we are seeing.

If you check some earlier posts I made last year during the election campaign, I never believed that a "Canadian style" program could ever be seriously considered there - simply due to the cultural and historical memes that differ between our two countries and how we see things.


^^ Exactly. I agree. It's very unfortunate for those of us who desire it to be otherwise, but as we've all seen by now even this attempted mild healthcare...."tune-up" (I don't want to say reform because I agree with Howard Fineman that it's not a fundamental systemic reform).... has just barely been possible due to the ingrained feelings of about half the country for starters, combined with the excessive corporate influence in DC (in this case private insurance , big pharm, etc).
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 272
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/7/2010 9:50:49 AM

It's very unfortunate for those of us who desire it to be otherwise


Ya know what I'd do if i desired what another country already has? I'd go to that country and become a citizen of it instead of trying to manipulate things to my liking in a country in which the majority are clearly not supporting it. But I guess that is just some misguided clear thinking on my part.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 273
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/7/2010 7:52:13 PM
Ya know what I'd do if i desired what another country already has? I'd go to that country and become a citizen of it instead of trying to manipulate things to my liking in a country in which the majority are clearly not supporting it. But I guess that is just some misguided clear thinking on my part.


I'm not trying to manipulate or change it, personally. A gov't elected by a majority is trying to do it. If "the majority" were so vehemently against Obama touching healthcare, when he clearly made it plain that he would during his campaign, then why was he so relatively easily elected ??

Generally speaking , the country is divided on these kinds of social issues on a nearly 50/50 basis, sometimes closer to 60/40, but still it's not some huge glaring percentile difference where American liberals are ridiculously outnumbered as though they were members of some radical extremist group or something.

A large proportion of the population is liberal (in varying degrees) and an equally large proportion is conservative (in varying degrees). Which proportion should relocate to another country ASAP is therefore a matter of which side you're on.

For example for me, if nearly every Republican announced his and her impending repatriation to a different country (although I'm not sure which country in the known world would actually be a good fit for a bunch of American Republicans and Right-Libertarian-types), I would find this no cause for upset personally. I mean I wouldn't fight to convince them to stay, or "preserve the Union", saying things such as, "oh come on, at the end of the day we're all fellow countrymen..." and all that. So I can actually understand where you're coming from.

I'm the first-generation in my family even born here; I don't feel as deep an attachment to these kinds of people who I disagree so vehemently with politically, nor do I feel any great bond of "fellow countryman" or even common history with them. Yes we dwell within the same borders, and we pay taxes to the same fed'l gov't, but in many ways that is about where the similarity ends. That's probably inherent to a point in these modern societies that are "melting pots" (some people are not fully "melted" yet).

So I admit there is certain legislation which , even if I do not fully agree with its every aspect, I am happy to see pass simply because I know it's driving that "other side" crazy. Politics of spite or dislike at that point, I guess. So that's one of the main reasons (aside from the 30 million uninsured it's actually helping) that I will be happy the day Obama finally puts his signature on the health care "tune-up" bill.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 274
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/8/2010 4:51:01 AM

Ya know what I'd do if i desired what another country already has? I'd go to that country and become a citizen of it instead of trying to manipulate things to my liking in a country in which the majority are clearly not supporting it. But I guess that is just some misguided clear thinking on my part.


Besides what Dino posted already, we should take into account the meaning of the words that we use. There is no reason to use the word "manipulate" to accuse president Obama when he is trying to deliver one of the key elements of his political platform. He was elected by the majority and it is his political duty to try to deliver for the country all the major changes that are needed to improve the living conditions for the majority of the people.

If you want to talk about "manipulation," go back to the years of G. W. Bush. When the people didn't like the idea of going into a an unnecessary war with Iraq, he lied and cheated and manufactured fake evidence to force people to allow him to invade a country that hadn't attacked the USA. Now, that was "manipulation."
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 275
view profile
History
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent
Posted: 1/8/2010 6:48:20 AM
I'm not trying to say everyone should pack it up and move, I'm saying I would if what I wanted was already available elsewhere.

Obama did campaign on a platform of change to the healthcare system. No argument there. But when that change was proposed, the majority have spoken and said they do not like that proposed change. So therefore, another proposal should be brought to the table that is acceptable to the majority of the people. Everyone I know is ready for change to the healthcare system. But almost everyone I know is not ready for the kind of change the democrats in office are forcefeeding us. And therein lies the problem.

And no, I don't want to talk about Bush. He isn't in office anymore. It is a difference of opinion about the Iraq war and you don't know anymore than I do what really happened with that situation. It's all opinions, and Obama chooses not to go there (do you think possibly he knows something we don't?--he is, after all, the smartest man on earth, according to the democrats) so everyone else should let it rest, too. It's done and too late to cry about it now, but this healthcare monstrosity isn't. But it soon will be, and I guess you guys will enjoy it 3-5 years from now, when it finally starts coming into action. Unless some really smart people find the loopholes and repeal the stinkin' thing.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent